INFYCONS CREATIVE SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 January 2020AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) after a delay due to organizational changes and a change in the consultant handling TDS matters. The CIT(A) did not condone this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the matters should be restored for a decision on merit.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 26.11.2019Pronounced: 30.01.2020

O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, AM

All these four appeals are filed by the assessee and the same are directed against four separate orders of learned CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, all dated 26.12.2018 in respect of late filing of Form 26Q and From No.24Q for quarter 2 & 4 for Financial Year 2012-13. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

In addition to various grounds raised

on merit, this is one of the grounds raised in these four appeals that learned CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him. to 348/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 3

3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that in para No.4 of his order, learned CIT(A) has reproduced the explanation given by the assessee before him in respect of delay in filing of the appeal. He pointed out that in the said explanation, it was submitted by the assessee before learned CIT(A) that there has been certain changes in the organization and the consultant who was in charge of TDS matters and therefore, the intimations with regard to TDS had not been tracked regularly and as soon as such intimations were tracked, the same were analyzed and appeals were filed immediately and hence, the delay should have been condoned by learned CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter should be restored back to the learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para 4 from the order of learned CIT(A) in which is as under:

5.

In the remaining 3 appeals also, para No.4 of order of CIT(A) is on similar line and the explanation of the assessee regarding delay is similar except there is difference in the number of days of delay. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), it was held that when substantial justice to 348/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 3 and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Respectfully following this judgment, we condone the delay in filing of appeals before CIT (A) in all these appeals and restore all the four matters to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merit. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at this present stage and we make no comment on merit.

6.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →